Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,546 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Supreme Court Decision Delivers Blow To Workers' Rights


"[T]he edict that employees with wage and hours claims may seek relief only one-by-one does not come from Congress," Ginsburg writes. "It is the result of take-it-or-leave-it labor contracts harking back to the type called 'yellow dog,' and of the readiness of this Court to enforce those unbargained-for agreements. The FAA demands no such suppression of the right of workers to take concerted action for their 'mutual aid or protection.'"

She urged Congress to correct the court's elevation of the arbitration act over workers' rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,089 Posts
you know it
its a plutocracy now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,892 Posts
you know it
its a plutocracy now
After Trump gave his own family a bigly $bILLION inheritance tax cut, KLEPTOcracy is more like it. If he wins in 2020 don't be surprised if he has a puppet run in 24, just like his pal Vlad....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,089 Posts
I think most of America except for the Cultists have realize that Mr. Trump is a con man
this is why he can only manage less than 50% approval rating even in the right wing polls
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,546 Posts
Discussion Starter #14


Huge, immediate gains for wealthy shareholders combined with tepid increases in business investment and decreases in real wages don’t paint a flattering picture of the tax cut’s impact so far. There is, however, a possibility that the tax cut has acted as a Keynesian fiscal stimulus, helping to push down unemployment.

But that’s not exactly the long-term structural improvement that the bill’s supporters advertised. And as a recent research note from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out, fiscal stimulus in good economic times is less effective than in recessions. And growth hasn’t really sped up either — real per capita gross domestic product growth was only 1.34 percent in the first quarter, below 2017’s pace, and considerably less than in 2014 and 2015:


This tepid rate of growth means that the tax cut is unlikely to pay for itself. By this point, almost all economists recognize that income tax cuts no longer stimulate the economy enough to reduce deficits, as supply-siders thought they would back in the 1980s. But economists still held out some hope that lowering the corporate tax, which is believed to be more harmful than the personal income tax, would have a more salutary effect on the budget. Unfortunately, that hope appears to be fading, as fiscal deficits increase rapidly.

There’s still the possibility that Trump’s tax reform will bear fruit in the long term. But early results are pointing to another possibility — that tax cuts have run their course as an economic policy.

As I recently tried to explain to an economic ignoramus, by and large as proven by the Laffer curve, tax cuts are detrimental to the economy and government debt standing when they are directed to businesses and individuals already on top brackets paying historically low taxes in a booming economy like we've had in the last five years.

So... so far, Trump's tax cuts have done nothing to increase wages or GDP, but it has made the wealthy a lot wealthier.

And isn't that the purpose of every republican tax cut...?


.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,546 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
“We Rise Together, Homie”


A thirty-year-old welder in Indianapolis, Dangerfield worked for a construction contractor building a UPS hub. On Tuesday, he says that a small number of Latino workers (millwrights, welders, and conveyor installers, in his telling) working for a different contractor but in the same hub were ordered home after disobeying the orders of a white boss he calls racist.

In response, the entire group of workers — over a hundred, in Dangerfield’s estimation — walked out.

Dangerfield caught their wildcat strike on camera at the moment they walked off the job. In his video, he is positively giddy watching them shut down their massive workplace.

“They are not bullshitting!” he says as Latino workers walk off. Referring to the boss, he says, “They thought they was gonna play with these amigos, and they said, ‘aw yeah, we rise together, homie.’ And they leaving! And they not bullshitting!”



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,033 Posts
How does it happen that companies which are owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country have workers not making enough money to feed their families and live in dignity? That is an issue the mainstream media has got to address.

American Airlines made $1.9 billion in profits last year. Their workers should not have to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps and Medicaid to try to get by.

-- Bernie Sanders

I love you Uncle Bernie, but there are consequences to arbitrarily forcing companies to pay their employees more than the free market allows. Higher labor costs always get passed on to the consumer. And when American companies are competing with foreign companies that have a much lower labor cost, those American companies sell fewer products and they go bankrupt. Then their workers are out of a job and no longer earn anything.

It's willful ignorance to pretend that this doesn't happen. It's also gross arrogance to suggest that company owners can just dip into their obscene profits to pay for higher labor costs. You can cry about it all you want, but companies exist to earn a profit. Take that away and the incentive to even exist as a company disappears.

If you want to help people who are working but not making enough money to afford necessities, then the way to do it is to have the state subsidize their needs with tax funded welfare and benefit programs. These programs already exist. If they aren't adequate, then they should be updated and provided with extra funding until they are adequate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,033 Posts
As I recently tried to explain to an economic ignoramus, by and large as proven by the Laffer curve, tax cuts are detrimental to the economy and government debt standing when they are directed to businesses and individuals already on top brackets paying historically low taxes in a booming economy like we've had in the last five years.

Sources?
 

·
Immoderately Caffeinated/ Vintage Moderator
Joined
·
16,345 Posts
I love you Uncle Bernie, but there are consequences to arbitrarily forcing companies to pay their employees more than the free market allows. Higher labor costs always get passed on to the consumer. And when American companies are competing with foreign companies that have a much lower labor cost, those American companies sell fewer products and they go bankrupt. Then their workers are out of a job and no longer earn anything.

It's willful ignorance to pretend that this doesn't happen. It's also gross arrogance to suggest that company owners can just dip into their obscene profits to pay for higher labor costs. You can cry about it all you want, but companies exist to earn a profit. Take that away and the incentive to even exist as a company disappears.

If you want to help people who are working but not making enough money to afford necessities, then the way to do it is to have the state subsidize their needs with tax funded welfare and benefit programs. These programs already exist. If they aren't adequate, then they should be updated and provided with extra funding until they are adequate.

^^That sounds more like some Orwellian version of feudalism. I'd be interested to know what you think a specific pay structure should be based on in an otherwise non-feudal society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,033 Posts
^^That sounds more like some Orwellian version of feudalism.
It's nothing of the sort. It's describing the reality of free markets and a warning about the hazards of assuming that you can simply pass laws that alter economic markets without negative consequence.


I'd be interested to know what you think a specific pay structure should be based on in an otherwise non-feudal society.
We live in a society that considers it unacceptable for individuals to go without necessities. Everyone is entitled to healthy food and clean water, safe housing, proper health care, and numerous other things. There are still a few holdouts who long for the days of pure capitalism, where everyone fends for themselves, but that's, fortunately, forever in our past.

So, the big question is how do we ensure that poor people have what they need? For some, the answer is to pass a law that mandates business owners to pay their workers an arbitrarily set wage that is significantly higher than what the market will bear.

My objection to this is that, because of the negative consequences I mentioned above, the actual economic help that goes to those workers is offset by economic harm to others. For some reason, advocates of "living wage" mandates aren't interested in refuting the actuality of negative consequences. Instead, they don't seem to even care because, apparently, good intentions are all that's important.

I contend that good intentions are useless without good outcomes. Helping the poor is a given in a compassionate society. Utilizing programs that are most efficient at that task should also be a given. When we examine low wage workers, we see that most of them are not living in poverty. Treating them as if they were all working poor and trying to help them with a simple law that just forces their employers to put more money in the paychecks of every low wage worker is the wrong approach. A far better solution is to identify the working poor and have the state provide direct assistance that is funded by a means tested tax.

I'm surprised that this state sponsored, tax funded idea isn't universally accepted by liberals. Income taxes are progressive. They take a higher percentage from the rich, who can afford it, and they are also needs tested, which means that we aren't wasting money giving welfare benefits to people who are choosing to work for a low wage because they like the job, but have another, independent source of income.

To see what I mean, the company I work for is a perfect example. We are a small manufacturing business with fewer than ten employees. Five of them are part time and work for just about $10/hr. The "living wage" movement suggests that $15/hr is an appropriate wage. There are two objections to this idea.

1) All of our competitors are based in China where their labor makes much less than $10 per hour. We're already at a serious competitive disadvantage and our company has been struggling from month to month for years. But we hang in there because the owner lives a very frugal, middle class existence and is the furthest thing from the greedy, money grubber, living in wealth, while his workers starve, that is usually assumed to be the case by the "living wage" activists. If the minimum wage went to $15/hr, we would be out of business within a few months because we simply don't have any room to increase labor costs without raising the price of our products. Doing so would price us right out of the market and bankruptcy would become inevitable and every employee would be out of a job. These are negative consequences that can't be ignored and justified by claiming "good intentions".

2) All five of our part time workers have independent sources of income and are comfortably middle class. They simply don't need the money and they work there because the job is extremely easy with a pleasant work environment. They are only working there because they consider their wages to be disposable income. Three of them are gamblers and use this job as an excuse to go to the casino every weekend and blow their paychecks there. The other two use this job as a means to upgrade their lifestyle. The extra income means they can drive a nicer car and eat at better restaurants and take vacations more often.


We can be compassionate and help poor people get what they need. We don't need to be stupid and try to solve problems that don't even exist by passing brute force laws that ignore economic reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,546 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
In difficult times executives used the 'competitive' excuse not to share a company's wealth. In times when companies are making billions and the money goes into executive's pockets and to shareholders the same excuse is used.

Increase employee benefits, give them bonuses, give them stock in the company.

Anyone against this, speak up and explain your brainwashing.






Now, would anyone like to guess how much money the Waltons made in those 18 years?
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
About this Discussion
50 Replies
9 Participants
GreenT
Mercedes-Benz Forum
BenzWorld.org forum is one of the largest Mercedes-Benz owner websites offering the most comprehensive collection of Mercedes-Benz information anywhere in the world. The site includes MB Forums, News, Galleries, Publications, Classifieds, Events and much more!
Full Forum Listing
Top